Which argument could be made for asserting jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant?

The argument regarding the defendant's targeted marketing efforts toward the forum state is a strong basis for asserting jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. This is grounded in the principle of "minimum contacts," which posits that a defendant can be subjected to personal jurisdiction in a state if their activities are purposefully directed toward that state. By actively marketing, advertising, or soliciting business within the forum state, the defendant has established connections that could reasonably lead to legal proceedings in that jurisdiction.

This connection demonstrates that the defendant could anticipate being brought to court in that state, making it fair and reasonable for the court to exercise jurisdiction. Courts often consider the nature and extent of the defendant's actions and whether these actions create a substantial connection with the forum state, which is precisely what targeted marketing efforts would accomplish.

In contrast, the other options do not clearly indicate sufficient grounds for asserting jurisdiction. The location of the plaintiff's residence alone does not automatically grant jurisdiction over the defendant unless relevant contacts with the forum state exist. Similarly, the place of incorporation of the defendant’s business may be relevant in some contexts, but on its own, it typically does not establish a basis for personal jurisdiction without additional connections to the forum state.